Organizers of the annual conference of the International Academy of Nursing Editors seek proposals for the August 2014 event in Portland, ME (USA). Details here: http://nursingeditors.com/2013/08/29/call-for-abstracts-for-inane-2014-now-open/
Submit your poster abstract for the INANE conference. The deadline is April 1. Enjoy networking with nursing editors from around the world. Your ideas and projects that enhance your journal’s message are key to the goal of networking at the conference. Posters will be displayed prominently at the conference and there will be dedicated time for you to interact with conference attendees to discuss your poster.
Guidelines for Submission
• Title of Abstract
• Author Name(s) and contact information
• 2-3 Objectives (What will the viewer learn?)
• 250-word abstract with descriptive details on your topic
• Related references (if applicable)
Questions? Contact Mickey Dougherty: firstname.lastname@example.org
Submit your Microsoft Word document by e-mail to email@example.com by April 1,2011. Notification of acceptance April 15, 2011. Accepted posters will be available on the INANE web site http://www.nursingeditors-inane.org/ and available in conference materials.
One of the frequently confounding experiences that professors like you have had in scholarly publishing involves peer reviewers, whose comments sometimes conflict with each other or whose critiques are abusive or clueless.
You are not alone. According to an article by Jeffrey Brainard entitled “Incompetence Tops List of Complaints About Peer Reviewers” in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Incompetence by their reviewers was the most common problem reported by scientists who submitted manuscripts to scholarly journals. Almost two-thirds voiced that beef in a survey administered to scientists employed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The supposedly expert reviewers, scientists complained, had not carefully read articles, were unfamiliar with the subject matter, or made mistakes of fact or reasoning. The survey results, the first of their kind, were reported in the September issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics.
Only a small percentage of scientists reported experiencing two of the most serious violations of peer-review ethics, breach of confidentiality (7 percent) or theft of ideas (5 percent). That finding appears at odds with anecdotal reports that those two problems are pervasive and that the peer-review system is a corrupt, old-boys’ network.
Complete articles available on line to subscribers.
Recent queries from readers of NursingWriting have focused on the question, “I’ve been writing ________; do you think the editor of _______ journal would be interested in it?” or “I’ve written ______; do you think that this is the kind of thing that the editor has in mind for the special issue of _____ journal?”
So here are some quick tips about what editors want (based on my experience as an editor of a journal, as a member of the Council of Editors of Learned Journals, and as a published scholar).
- Editors are usually eager to receive new material (unless the periodical is a highly prestigious journal that receives many more submissions than it accepts).
- Editors want to know that writers have carefully read the specifications of a call for submissions, including topic specifications, length specifications, and format specifications.
- Editors want to know that writers have actually read their journals, that writers know the kinds of material that their journals publish (for example quantitative studies or qualitative studies, personal essays or reviews), that writers know the format or style sheet that the journal employees. This entails writers’ reviewing a couple of recent issues of a journal or periodical, either on line or in a large library collection (like that provided by your local university).
- Editors welcome inquiries by writers prior to submission. An email to an editor in which a writer provides a précis or summary of his or her paper, characterizes the kind of paper, and informs the editor about the length is usually sufficient.
- Editors are often over-extended professionally and may need a follow-up email from the writer after a reasonable time (say two weeks).
- Editors-in-chief may be enthusiastic about your proposed submission, but still rely on their fellow editors, an editorial board, or peer reviewers for the final decision about whether or not to publish an author’s work. (Authors learn how to take rejection without dejection!)
In most cases, there is probably a venue suitable for the work that you are writing; the key is for you to do your homework in selecting those venues. Most journals will have “advice to authors” or “submission guideliness” on their Web site; if you click on “CELJ” in our Web Sites to Watch sidebar, you will find additional general guidance from the Council of Editors of Learned Journals.